Skip to main content

About your Search

English 62
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 62 (some duplicates have been removed)
and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god? >> i do. >> congratulations, senator. >> please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic; that you will bear full faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god? [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] to the most important job. that's what i keep telling my grand kids. cowal old are you? >> nice to see you guys. [inaudible conversations] >> do you solemnly swear that he will support and defend the constitution of the unite
. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the vice president: the chair lays before the senate one certificate of appointment to fill an unexpired term and the certificates of election of 33 senators elected for six-year terms beginning on january 3, 2013. all certificates, the chair is advised, are in the form suggested by the senate or contain all the essential requirements of the form suggested by the senate. if there be no objection, the reading of the certificates will be waived and they will be printed in full in the record. if the senators to be sworn will now present themselves at the desk of four as their names are called in alphabetical order, the chair will administer the oath of office. the clerk will read the names of the first group. the clerk: miss baldwin of wisconsin. mr. barrasso of wyoming. mr. brown of ohio. ms. cantwell of washington. the vice president: please raise your right hands. do you solemnly swear that you will suppor
on the united states supreme court when he was appointed by president madison in 1812. he made a significant mark on american law in his 33 years on the bench, but his greatest contribution to the jurisprudence is his renowned commentary on the constitution. eminently quoted joseph story famously incorrectly declared, quote, a constitution of government is addressed to the common sense of the people and never was designed for trials of logical skills or visionary speculation and of quote. this lecture series celebrates the legacy into law. prior to the joseph story lectures have been and judge robert bork, professor john harrison at the university school of law, judge raymond randolph of the united states court of appeals for the d.c. circuit, and last year chief justice of the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit. tonight we are honored to have a fifth name to the prestigious list as we welcome justice anthony kennedy who will deliver this evening's joseph story distinguished lecture on the topic, t
years ago, as we all know, we were considering lmj terminals to import natural gas to the united states. what a difference a few short years make. by developing new technology to access potential new sources like oil shale, which often goes not talked about, we will be able to dramatically increase our energy potential and role as the global energy leader. oil shale in the western united today is estimated at 800 billion barrels, which is nearly three times the proven oil reserve of saudi arabia. as the numbers clearly show, we in the industry are investing in america's future. and we'll be sharing what that means through a new campaign we are launching over the next few weeks, which will focus on raising understanding of the unique and foundational role of the u.s. oil and natural gas industry and what it means to our economy. what it means for our communities, and for o- america's lives, for revenue, for refining, and what it means ultimately to job creation and economic recovery. oil and natural gas companies support 9.2 million jobs and could easily support an additional 1.4 million
science positions every year in the united states cannot be filled by available american workforce positions. and i have positions that need to be filled so that our technology industry can continue to thrive. simply put, u.s. based companies have a great need for those trained in the science, technology, engineering and math fields. but at least right now there are not enough americans trained and ready to fill these jobs. we cannot continue to simply hope that american companies do not move operations to countries where they have greater access for individuals trained in these s.t.e.m. fields. we cannot continue to ignore this problem. it's that simple. continued in action -- especially since the american enterprise institute has confirmed 100 foreign-born workers with s.t.e.m. degrees create an average of 262 additional jobs for nativeborn workers. let me tell you, these countries would love to have the american educated ph.d's and other highly educated individuals return and boost their economies. not only from their acquired skills, but also by creating these new jobs as well.
believed the supreme court's decision in citizens united was wrong, that we needed to know more disclosure of campaign contributions. yet a small minority of senators were able to prevent the bill from even being debated on the floor of the senate, let alone receiving an up-or-down vote. that's just one example. in the last two congresses, consider just some of the measures blocked by the minority, measures that received majority support on a cloture vote: the dream act, bring jobs home act, small business jobs and tax relief act, paying fair share act of 2012, repeal big oil tax subsidies act, teachers and first responders back-to-work act, american jobs act of 2011, public safety employer-employee cooperation act, paycheck fairness act, creating american jobs and ending offshoring act. now, again -- again, it's not that the bill was filibustered. the right to even debate these bills and vote on them was filibustered. one thing, he go on the bill and they filibuster. no, we couldn't even debate it. even though a majority of senators voted for cloture. not 60 but a majority. so the majorit
we talk about here and respect and dignity and a woman in the united states is dependent and has been on security of winning a career that can always be the end with no maternity leave, way behind other countries where the mother did not even hear about the percentage to leave and a woman dreaming about a career. not to fear when she goes to an interview to imagine she has children because that would be the end of having a chance. thank you. >> thank you. >> i will be happy to do that. talked-about -- i have always gotten up at 4:30 or 5:00 but when i get up, i happen to have a son who has grown up now show when i get up 4:30 to 5:00 he is off living his life. my husband and i have always been in similar careers so that really helps a lot. but over the years i have made joyces in terms of what was in the half way i was on in order to create the flexibility for me to raise our son and i do think that is so very important. the one thing i will say about the university's and rider and speak about mine, we do have more family friendly policies because we have not just maternity leave the
. this was a chronology, and when the united states government announced large-scale resettlement of iraqis in 2007, we immediately looked at what should we be doing in light of this particular population, which was different, the nation out of we've not been reselling a great deal. we look at what enhancement we could bring on board that would address this new population. and that's when we create the partnership with dod. initially that was iraqi focused. later when we work with the national -- >> was this in 2007? >> 2007. later when we identified additional capacity a new partnership, that initially was focus on iraq at because but we learn by doing that was learned that heightened level of checks which was initially oriented towards iraqi applicants, we expand to applicants of all nationality. so really we use the iraqi program to raise the bar across the board for other nationalities. >> there was some 20, 25,000 a year for a features are coming out of iraq. is that about right? >> i believe the high point is 18,000. >> i mean, that still 18,000 a year. did you have the resources and capacity to
, the government of the united states under the constitution is a limited government and the constitution is to protect the people from the government, not for the government to give people rights and powers that the government then, in turn, could take away. on the other hand, the constitution does give broad powers to the federal government but it separates them among branches and between the states and the national government. the framers believed these structures would adequately control the government so as to protect individual liberty. but the american people disagreed. they believed that the constitution gave the federal government so much power that it could be tyrannical and violate individual rights. so as a condition of ratification, they demanded and received assurances that a bill of rights would be added to the constitution. now, each of those rights, including the second amendment dealing with guns, was adopted to yet further limit government power and to protect individual rights. in other words, the people that wrote the constitution in 1787, in the spirit that they beli
of people thought that was in possible. how could we do that? nobody had been in orbit yet in the united states. what kind of rockets are we going to build to be given to do it, and what is the main principle? he was going to build a big spacecraft but we didn't have a rocket to go in. we needed to lift the spacecraft that would do everything. take people up, go to the orbit, land, a comeback and then back into the ocean again. it was a monster. so he needed a rocket for the 1970's. so we had one to carry the injection and the other to carry the big spacecraft until somebody said we met. if we look at what we want to do, which is to get a man on the moon and bring him back, let's look at the settlements of this instead of a spacecraft to do everything. >> 100 years from now -- i'm just throwing a question and i will go back to this -- that you touched on something hundred, 200 years from now or we going to look back at the space program and say how primitive. in the 200 years, where to go from here from new york come to london, how advanced is this thing going to get? >> time will tell o
in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: would the chair announce the business for the day. the president pro tempore: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. and under the previous order the senate will be in a period of morning business until 1:30 p.m. for debate only, with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. mr. durbin: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: after any statement by the majority leader, i'd ask consent to be recognized in morning business. the president pro tempore: without objection. mr. durbin: it is my understanding the majority leader is going to yield the floor to me at this moment. the president pro tempore: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, the state of nevada was admitted to the union in 1864. since 1864 there have
to help create innovation focused jobs again in the united states. as you know all too well, madam president, our economic recovery has been slower than we would hope, although it's been steady, there are still far too many americans out of work. in my home state of delaware, more than 30,000. but we are building our way ba back. so the task before us is to think not just about an immediate economic crisis but to take a breath i think and instead focus strategically on the long-term fewer, to take -- long-term future, to take an account of what kind of economy we want to build for our children, for our grandchildren, for the america of today and tomorrow. the engine of our nation's greatest economic successes has always been innovation. from the light bulb to the search engine, american inventors and innovators, those who've taken risks and started companies, have created jobs by the thousands and changed lives by the millions. but before new ideas can scale to market and reach out to change the world, they first have to start in a lab or garage. i know from my own eight years in t
concentrated and very sedentary. so about 10% of all the people in the united states own about 80% of the guns. they're mostly middle class, middle-aged people living in rural areas, and they hold on to their guns for a long time. on the other hand, most of the people engaged in crime are teens and young adults. one of the -- and most criminal careers are short. and so one of the things that that means is that there's always a new generation of young people who are troying to solve the problem -- who are trying to solve the problem fresh of getting their hands on guns. and i think one way that you could think about the challenger here or the situation here is you could think about the united states being just like a giant bathtub filled with 300 million guns. we don't need to worry about the entire tub, we just feed to worry about -- we just need to worry about the drain, trying to divert the guns away from the high-risk hands. the one other thing that i want to mention for the conversation right now is we have a bunch of stuff going on at the federal level, and we have a bunch of states tryin
support. in 2010, 58 united states senators, a large majority, voted to pass this legislation. if we got 58 votes, then why didn't we get it? because of republican obstructionism, we couldn't even proceed to debate the bill. so this was a filibuster on a motion to proceed to the bill. we got 58 votes but we couldn't even debate it. now, since we just went through a recent debate on rules reform, i want the american people to understand this. republicans, the minority party, have continuously prevented the united states senate from even considering the issue of unequal wages and gender discrimination. millions of women and their families are concerned about the fact they get paid less than their male colleagues. it's unfair. it's unjust. nevertheless, repeatedly, the republicans have filibustered even debating the issue. well, now, madam president, just last week we had a vote in the senate to change some rules, so we made some modifications of the rules, and i trawl hop -- ay hope that those modifications that were made will now enable us to get over this hurdle to bring up the paycheck
of the united states and those of us that run the global companies obviously care very deeply about them. preserving the letter to nettie for comprehensive revenue neutral tax reform is a critical and very important to creating pro-growth tax law that will enable american companies to compete effectively against companies that are domicile in other countries around the world we need a level playing field. the united states has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. also the united states is one of the few countries in the world with a system that is called a global tax system rather than a territorial tax system. the 113th congress we are going to continue to advocate for comprehensive tax reform that broadens the base that reduces corporate tax rates and moves through a competitive territorial system. proctor and gamble pays income taxes and over 100 countries around the world. a business tax reform should provide a level playing field so that each business has the confidence of knowing it pays roughly the same amount of income tax as its competitors in markets with at home and ab
imagine if you would -- imagine among latin americans if foreign interference if it were the united states, if chavez were in the united states and nobody's seen them or talked to them or heard from them going on 40 days, and imagine the cries about american imperialism that we would hear, but we have that exact six chelation and it's not in the u.s. is actually cuba and they're kind of an unknown factor in all of this and in an economic why. >> charles, with that in mind if he were back in the state department, and you're not, so what would you be advising the folks to do in terms of the u.s. government cracks how do you, or a foreign government for that matter in terms of what are some positive things that could be done to advance the issues in a sustainable way and no telling putting it in very and vigorous terms that you could translate according to your own thoughts, but what could or should we be doing in the international community? >> that was actually next on my list of things if you didn't raise it i was going to say we didn't talk about this. and sort of go to the checklist. fir
of the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the united states, better known as the 9/11 commission. the commission found that 18 of the 9/11 hijackers had 30 ids between them, including six that were used on the morning of the attack. the commission called on the federal government to set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and secure identification such as driver's licenses. recognizing that sources of identification are the last opportunity to make sure people are who they say the art and to help hold gary sick to be. the real id act is not just an important tool for holding terrorist activity and security. it's also an important tool for helping to combat fraud and identity theft. passed in 2005, the real id act sets voluntary standards for the states to meet regarding id security speak these include facial recognition capture, improved document authenticity, data verification between face come increased card security, enhanced issuer integrity, and lawful status checks on noncitizens applicants. by meeting these standards state ids will be acceptable for official p
. and the pass and review, essentially, is the presidential escort unit which is comprised of approximately 380 service members followed by each of the service honor guards and, um, the u.s. army band as well as the marine corps band. and they will go past the president's location on the steps on the east front of the capitol. and once they complete the pass and review, then the presidential escort, they fall into the, um, the motorcade, and then they start the parade route. now, along the parade route we have approximately 2,300 military personnel participating in the parade. there are approximately 10,000 total personnel in the praild, and the way the parade is organized, there are five divisions in this parade. each division is led by a service component. so division one will be led by the army, division two by the marines, division three by the navy, division four by the air force and division five by a mixture of the coast guard and the merchant marines. and, essentially, it's comprised of military bands, service elements that represent the active, reserve and national guard components and
on the issue. if over the course of the last 30 years, roughly 35 years, the average income in the united states house hold have grown at the same rate of you succumb, 26% for the household growth, 2% of economy, the per capita gdp would be 50% higher than it is today, $90,000 versus $16,000. if you translate that into can what happens in household economy that is final. and what we do in washington is really, really important i just came back from a trip to brazil but i don't want to spend a lot of time on that but brazil is essentially has gone to a 0% grossly. a lot of that has to do with the kinds of things we have experience in washington that has been imposed in brazil. economic uncertainty. sorry, fiscal uncertainty, slightly higher taxes, slightly more because, slightly more costlier and all of that is caused the economy to government economic -- we have an ability to withstand more that independent than they do, but it's with the same effect. government can't necessary great economic growth but it can create the conditions for which the economies grow. we need understand that's v
to the united states command given the limited capacity in some cases the limited political will of the countries in which these groups operate. the u.s. military intelligence and security assistance resources devoted to these threats adequately are appropriately balanced and what recommendations would you have for us? >> if you are focusing just on north africa, al qaeda is a brand name as much as an organization. people wake up, they form these jihadists groups. they then plan to be associated with somehow, affiliated with al qaeda to gain credibility with local people as well as beyond. i think that we have to take seriously all of these terrorist groups, whatever they call themselves. now, at the moment they don't necessarily have either the interest or the devotee to attack our homeland. but we have a lot of facilities. we have a lot of assets in north africa. we just saw americans killed and held hostage at a gas as a buddy because we do business all over that continent so we have to take a hard look at all of them and constantly be helping our military intelligence an
as we think about the economy of the united states coming and as you point out, the other developing countries around the world. one of the efforts of this administration has been to promote business advocacy abroad for domestic businesses at home. i led a trade mission to india about a year and a half ago with a number of businesses from new and church, and they talked about how important it was to have that support from the state officials in india as they were looking to try to establish those business relationships. can you talk about how you might continue that and continue that this is something you would be focused on an unwilling to continue to support? >> well, as i said in my opening, i think foreign policy is increasingly economic policy, and we have an undersecretary for economic affairs, economics, energy etc.. i think that the state department historical use to have a foreign commercial service back in 1979. it slipped away. i think the secretary had the time -- i think that is something we ought to be doing in a very significant way. obviously working with the treasury
the history of smith & wesson, one of the largest gun manufacturers, handgun manufacturers in the united states that occurred in the 18 eighties in which with d.b. wesson, one of the founding partners of smith & wesson heard a story that the smith & wesson revolver was used by a child, when the child of the revolver to injure somebody. d.b. wesson found that unacceptable, so he told his son, joe wesson to design a child proof gun and the gun you see on the screen is the gun that joe wesson designed. if you look where the red arrow is, that is what is called the grip safety with. it is on the rearmost part of the gun that would have to be depressed by this area of your hand. my physician friends have taught me that is the eminence of the hand which i at first felt would be a middle eastern ruler. [laughter] but what this what fleshey part but have to push down the middle lever in order for the trigger to be told, and what smith & wesson called and said in this marketing material went to the smithsonian institute and we found their marketing materials from the 18 eighties they said and thi
that such worries were anachronistic. the passion of human beings in society such as the united states had believed to be domesticated. the no longer pretend to be tyrannical or otherwise undermine the order. hence wilson thought the state emancipated from the founders static constitution should be coming and i quote him, had instrumentalities for quickening in every suitable way. of collective and individual development. well, who was to determine what these might be suitable? the answer might be the government itself. wilson was as progressives tended to be a historic assist. that is someone with a strong sense of history he thought had its own unfolding logic, its autonomous trajectory, its proper destination. was the duty of leaders to discern the destination towards progressing and to make government the unfettered of the process, progressives tend to exalt the role of farsighted leaders and the role of the american president. this too put them at odds with the founders. the words leader and leaders of here just 13 times in all of the federalist papers. once as a reference to those that led th
of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding off icer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., january 4 , 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: following leader remarks the national will recess to count the electoral votes. following that we're hopeful to complete action on part of the flood insurance -- [inaudible] the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. the presiding officer: without objection, t
these issues. i know that the united kingdom is sometimes seen as an argumentative and rather strong-minded member of the family of european nations. and it is true that our geography has shaped our psychology. we have the character of an island nation. we are independent, forthright, passionate in defense of our sovereignty. we can no more change this british sensibility than we can train the english channel. and because of this sensibility, we come to the european union with a frame of mind that is more practical than emotional. for us, the european union is the means to an end. prosperity, stability, the anchor of freedom and democracy both within europe and beyond her shores, not an end in itself. we insistently ask how, why, to what end? but this doesn't make us somehow un-european. the fact is that ours is not just an island story. it is also a continental story. for all our connections with the rest of the world, for which we are mightily proud, we have always been a european power and we always will be. from caesar's legion to the napoleonic wars, from the reformation, the en
standards. [speaking german] >> translator: quite often one will have to debate, for example, unit labor cost research, development, efficiency of administration and wage costs that fall within the realm of national sovereignty of the european union member states. the national parliaments would have to give political legit maasty so such -- legitimacy to such agreements that would then be binding so that we all know to what extent competitiveness in the euro area will be improved. there's another road that we shall embark on, namely we should do everything we can in order to insure increased mobility of our labor force within the european single market. we have barriers of language, we have barriers of portability, of social security systems, and this area the possibilities, the potential of a single market needs to be tapped also for a single labor market. and a third thing that we need to do. we have to respond to the question of how this single market, this european single market ought to look in order to be recognized as an important global player on international markets. so we must
the office of president to united states fatally. >> i will execute -- >> faithfully the office of the president of the united states. >> when chief justice john roberts administered the oath to barack obama, on january 20, 2009, there was a major problem. roberts was supposed to say that i will faithfully execute the office of the president of the united states. so then, barack obama stops, paused, smiled, as if to say,qss come on, man, this is my big day, you've got to get this right, but, unfortunately, he didn't get it right. so the very next night in the white house they did it again. this time roberts use notes in which he hadn't used the first time, and they got it right. >> jim bendat walks the history of democracies big day monday at 8 a.m. and again 8 p.m. eastern at booktv. part of a three-day holiday weekend on c-span2's booktv. >> advocates for immigration reform yesterday called on president obama and congress to make it his top party for 2013. speak at the national press club come u.s. chamber of commerce thomas donohue said defenses can be built among different g
the benefit of the united states guarantee on their performance. they live or die by the fact whether you pay your mortgage or you don't. because of that, those securities, by the way, trade at markets. they do not trade as far. they reflect the fact that there are huge problems in that community. i brought one slide, and right now's a perfect time to put the slide up. so just to frame this, to frame this, so i can see it here, that's okay. um, this is one, an adaptation from one page in fannie mae's third quarter 10q. so this is the united states government's view of the plf sector. this is with respect to that portion of the bonds that they own. longer discussion of why frank may owns any of these bonds at all, but they do own some of those bonds. and they now tell us what they think about the underlying mortgages. and these are the numbers you want to look at. fannie mae says that there's about $28 billion on their balance sheet, exposure to mortgages, in this sector. they expect a 50% default rate. this isn't before, this is going forward on their existing holdings, 50% default rate. and
time to examine those in detail. we haven't used the process that is in place here in the united states senate to go through committees and let the committees work through, is this essential to meeting the emergency needs? or can we set this aside and spend a little more time examining it, looking at it to make sure that this is how we want to go forward? we have a habit here of throwing money at things under an emergency category and then later finding out that, one, it wasn't an emergency where the money went. and, number two, it was misspent and not effective. we simply can't afford to keep doing this. once again i want to state we're not here trying to undermine funding for sandy, needed for sandy. some of the things the house did i think are legitimate in terms of saying let's set aside unrelated matters. it doesn't mean we cast them into the dust bin never to be seen again. it simply means let's let those that are not emergency situations be more carefully examined in terms of whether we need that. and if someone does come to the floor, as senator lee is going to do, is my underst
to start with you. the first panel yesterday was looking at this question of a new normal, and the united states' current light footprint strategy. i could literally feel you chomping at the bit as one of the panelists discussed what he saw as the u.s. role in the world being in such a state of flux now. but we are less willing than ever before to step up to try to solve the chaos in the world, especially when there's no pressing national interest. >> first of all, i think we have to as politicians understand what our constituents, what our citizens, what their priorities are and what their concerns are. our former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff made a comment that's been b often quoted, he said our greatest national security threat is our economy. and i think that that is absolutely true. when we have half the homes in my state of arizona still underwater, worth less than the mortgages that they're paying, people, obviously, their attention is on that aspect of their lives. and so when we talk about foreign adventures, they're very reluctant particularly with our iraq and afghanis
very active on this issue, but the united states supreme court several terms ago, actually, issued a ruling that really limited the due process rights of those in civil commitments and really rooked at it, contemplated it as an extension of the existing criminal sentence. and so, but it hasn't stopped the litigation, but there is a lot of work that needs to be done still on civil commitment issues. and so that's -- it's kind of an ongoing project, and it exists a lot in a host of different contexts. i don'ti don't know if you're tg about a specific context, but for sex offenses, people committed for mental, because of mental illnesses and there are a range of issues that the aclu used in working on with partner groups to actually address and raise the due process concerns around civil commitment. >> can you explain something about the philosophy behind, um, incarceration at pelican bay and why -- what is the idea behind isolating a person, um, so acutely? >> there, um, so one is aside from the campaign to end overincarceration at the aclu, we like to have big campaigns. but another
two years and how this united states senate can fulfill its responsibilities under the constitution to do its legislative responsibilities, addressing the big issues facing america. now, i don't think anyone is unaware that the last two years, this chamber has seen simply inaction and paralysis. it's been rated as one of the worst two-year sessions in the history of the united states government. well, what are we going to do differently? how is it that we only addressed one out of 24 appropriation bills over the last two years? how is it that so many important bills never made it to the floor of the senate, bills such as the replacement for no child left behind, coming on bipartisan vision out of -- out of committee? how is it that so many bills came to this floor to never see a final vote? the disclose act which would have eliminated secrecy in campaign donations. the dream act, which would have honored creating a future for those who know only america as their home. the president's jobs package, which would have helped put america back to work. the closing of loopholes for the big
is causing serious harm to the united states. americans think congress has a problem. indeed, americans think congress is a problem. well, if we want to fix a problem, we ought to be specific about it. a doctor wouldn't try to fix a patient without a precise understanding of the patient's problem. an engineer wouldn't try to fix a system without a precise understanding of the system's problem. a mechanic wouldn't try to fix your car without a precise understanding of your car's problem. so if we are going to fix what is wrong with congress, we better have a precise understanding of what congress's problem is. let's start with the senate. we do have our share of dysfunction in the senate, i will confess. undoubtedly the filibuster is being abused. certainly nominees awaiting confirmation are unjustifiably delayed. indeed they are held hostage. so everything is not all roses in the senate. but we did pass a highway bill, a bipartisan highway bill that passed the senate with 74 votes. we did pass a farm bill, a bipartisan farm bill. although i did not support that particular measure, it was a bi
. you write it out and, actually, a record needs to be made of it. the case of united states v. reid in the fourth said it sounds like it won't take that long, but it turns out these procedures take a while. it's the initial time that had been taken at the stop, the investigation, the field sobriety test, and sometimes these folks get to the hospital, and they're not given first priority, so there's sometimes some waiting at the hospital. >> so is it okay to let the police officers take the blood? blel, we think that's a different question and one that the court reserved in schmerber. there was a medical personnel taking the blood in that case, but it's said if we had a different case, we'd is ask whether the situation invited an unjustified element of personal risk of infection and pain. so we think the court should get a case that has a record on this, and then it could make a determination -- >> if we rule in your favor, we will. >> i'm not sure that that's true. the reason that a few states have considered is basically out of necessity. it is just in rural jurisdictions it's too
that here in the united states, as in other countries that are recovering from the great recession, the fiscal multiplier is actually greater than 1, meaning that a $1 reduction in government spending shrinks the overall economy by more than $1, doing net harm. oxford economics puts the fiscal multiplier of the united states at 1.4, which means for every dollar you cut, you ha you had e lose $1 340eu in gross domestic product. goildman sax, which is not exactly a left-wing outfit has put it close to 1.5. cut $1, lose $1.50 in gross domestic product. economists at the the university of california have found that during recessions -- and it is important -- during recessions, the fiscal multiplier in developed countries generally falls between 1.5 and 2. that complicated economic gobbledygook boils down to this: $1 in reduced government spending will reduce gross domestic product by more than $1 -- by $1 340eu or $1.70 or whatever the multiplier is, and damages the economy without accomplishing the intended deficit reduction. other countries teame attemptedt austerity -- spain, greece
in every state of new, sustainable renewable fuel creation jobs in every state in this unit should be a top priority. i'm curious as to why we can't get that going. you might want to look at congress, maybe it's too hard of a vote. we think there's a strong will for the. we think the technologies as mentioned in a previous panel, we think technologies, the doors open. we've been engaged with a company that we think has done a demonstration. we are not supporting a company that we're supporting the pursuit of processes that move was to sell you lost the production. we think the government needs to stay on track to encourage alternative fuel development. the easiest thing for the whole marketplace itself a drop in to sustain infrastructure we use now. and that's not out of sight. that's just a little ways in the future. >> i think what of the most overlooked part of the conversation is the fact that the first and foremost goal of automakers is to make a car that is safe. do you ever see any conflicts or hard balancing act to make sure you build a car that is safe while also trying to meet the
fortunate we are in the united states to have a third bucket to draw from to address our deficit and debt. the first bucket is spending. we've been talking about entitlement spending, defense spending. the second bucket is revenue. and if you have to depend on just those two buckets, it's going to be a real long and difficult day. so we need a third bucket. and its energy, which is the next priority that i'd like to discuss. proceeding swiftly and responsibly to develop more american energy can help us in measurably with our fiscal problems, but it can also do much more for our country. we have more oil, gas and coal than any other country, and we are now the largest single natural gas producer in the world. we are now in a position to export liquefied natural gas and coal, and us, reduce our trade deficits and bring billions of dollars to the united states. the abundance of affordable natural gas is attracting good manufacturing jobs back to america, particularly in the chemical and and steel industry. all of this adds up to a lot of jobs, growth, improved national security, and more rev
had just rolled over that embargo on december 1st but we decided to the negotiations in the united kingdom to do that for three months rather than for 12 months and we decided to do that because we don't know how the situation is going to develop and we think we should be given flexibility to respond. we haven't yet taken any position beyond that. the process, therefore to the efforts of your question, it is now the e.u. state that is coming up to the first of march deadline of the current e.u. whether they will want to amend that in any way. it could be amended to apply to the regime and not to the opposition forces but it could be amended in many other ways. as a that would require the agreement of all of the states. >> in the syrian opposition i'm interested to know if that could be linked but not lethal. how serious is this embargo and is it possible for example the communications equipment that could be used in conjunction with turkey and some other countries to the elements in your possession. >> well, it's not military. it's certainly not legal. the systems so far include so
if not potential return to some isolation in the united states weather for political reasons or budgetary constraint purposes. that is a different position than the guarantor of security and liberty globally. europe may not have the financial resources to pick up the baton. can you describe what you think the risks are to the united states in not serving the leading nation physically, militarily, particularly in the context of so much optimism being placed on soft power, trade relationships, trade agreement and economic power, the post-modern way of guaranteeing security? >> the consequences are potentially very significant. america has always been looked to since the end of world war ii as a nation that paved the way, much like we used to look at california as the future for the other 49 states. today we look at california and say it is a basket case. the world is looking at america today saying they are not the power they once were. they don't have the will or the commitment to be that or the resources to be that. they read the tea leaves more carefully than the american public does whe
to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding off icer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., january 23, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable heidi heitkamp, a senator from the state of north dakota, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: madam president, yesterday i had the opportunity to meet my democratic senate caucus for the first time this year. it was the first opportunity for all of us to sit down together to break bread and discuss challenges and opportunities that we all face. and as the majority leader, i was gratified to see so many new faces and have such an inclusive caucus. madam president, it was music to my ears to hear the announcement today that the presiding officer today is heidi heit
in the united states. and everybody says, i didn't think this could happen. i'm like, well, i've got pictures in the '30s when they were flooding the subways back then. it just doesn't happen very frequently. we had -- all of their imaging equipment in the basement. it makes sense when you don't deal with storms every year, it's much easier to shield, it's isolated, and it's a great space putting that type of equipment. now if you're getting hurricanes every five or six years you wouldn't have built there. if you hadn't had a storm since the series of any magnitude, made perfect sense when you did. we are not going to rebuild it that way. this is the last part, from the science perspective. here's my ask. who's making the decisions about where we build, how we build? and if in a summit with the united states you're going to think it's the federal government. no. some of you might think it's the state government. not really. where do these decisions get made? local officials. whether their city or county commissions, land-use planning board. this is where the decisions are made every day wear,
. i think it would be incredibly foolish to renege on the debt of the united states. it would be enormous consequences. that is a losing proposition for everyone. but how long we extend the debt limit, that is open to negotiation. and between the two of how long you extend the debt limit, and number two, how you deal with the sequestered, gives you an opportunity for another attempt at a grand bargain. revenue and spending we strength, especially on the mandatory programs to get america back on track. we can do. we done much tougher things before. and this is our next opportunity to put america in a preeminent position in the world. if we solve this problem, there is nothing that can stop the united states from continuing to be the most important and dominant country in the world. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. senators conrad, senator gregg. we're going to open it up to questions, but i'd like to start with one. we know what the problem is, and we sort of know how to solve it. but we are confronted by the reality of the political dynamics on the hill, a republi
united of greater washington. i'm also a city commissioner on the commission for persons with disabilities, for the county of things george maryland. and i also -- prince george maryland and also want to commend you for your very important first step towards resolving a very egregious problem with regard to predatory lending. i myself am a predatory lending survivor. however, i am very concerned as to whether or not the protections built into your effort are adequate enough for people who are particularly vulnerable, that folks like myself, who are truly disabled, one of the things i would really like to happen is to get a copy of your proposal in some audio form. i do not have immediate computer access, and unless god changes his mind, i'm not going to be able to read the printed page. but one concern that i do have is a safe harbor for borrowers. and i have used myself as an example. my predatory lender has been an enthusiastic violation of a modification contract signed in october '07, for quite a few years. i'm paying almost $200 outside the agreed upon some. i have j
. we have been negotiating back and forth, and they announced that publicly. in the united states, the law is similar but different in the way it is applied to in our case the government decided to have the federal trade commission look at this and similar investigations are underway. there's a similar hearing. i testified at the hearings but again, i don't see the consumer arm under section two, and we've asked the government to come back and give us examples of things which are violation of law. we haven't seen that yet. we are also in negotiations with them. so i'll would say we talk to people a lot, sort of waiting on them at some level, and we're in sort of, hopefully, the ideal scenario would be that we come to a mutual agreement with all, with both of these. >> it gets me to thinking about that, you mentioned some of these initiatives are involved in. is there, how do you decide where to focus, what to focus on when you then look at planting for 2013? just such a huge range of things spin to use the wrong word to you don't plan. you sort of build the systems come to build a
with the promoter saying you can't sell guns there so i went back and this time shooting the video from the united corps but indeed they have absolutely no gun sales but everybody has congregated about 150 feet up against the building. he was relocated about a 32nd flock. the other thing that happened, and jamie was kind enough to mention they were kind of winding down the office in the city of new york sent a team of private detectives out and we talked to cameras and we talked on how to try to avoid detection and talked about some gun shows we might want to go to. i had one guy walking around with a camera and these guys were pros. the allies and the years of engagement that said you can't talk to anybody but they were not so hampered and the shot a video and i'm going to show it to you. >> i'm going to let this speak for itself. >> i need to see your id. >> no background checks? >> get the idea? now, what they did -- can you get my powerpoint batt? the difference between -- they identify the retailers who were engaged -- two-thirds of the retailers they targeted failed what they called the inte
in the united states to detect and deny purchases, and you've heard the details, i'm not going to go back through them. we conducted almost 11 million background checks in 2009, we denied 150,000 of them. but the question really is do we deny enough? phil cook in his tape mentioned evidence from california that caused them to relook at those findings. well, i'm that evidence. i basically sketched out on the back of an envelope given the narrow scope of the current denial criteria, even if you assume high rates of badness, it's probably impossible for their method to have found an effect. daniel mentioned but it's a point worth reemphasizing, most people who are interviewed when they are incarcerated for a crime, violent crime committed with a firearm, when they are interviewed and asked where did you get the gun that you used in committing that crime, most of those people are not prohibited from purchasing firearms at the time they commit the crime for which they are incarcerated. we're going to look at three studies. we're doing some science here, folks, and i'm going to move fast, so ha
. as a row this in the context of women in ground combat units where i was very distressed that a bunch of republican senators in the last 48 hours who decided we had women in charge in 2012, so we're not going to oppose something that is literally not i think an extremely damaging -- [applause] >> and will be extremely damaging to all kinds of ways and there are many good arguments against it. we wrote a good editorial against it. but a politician sometimes over thinks these things and they tell us i can't fight this fight because he we did bad in 2012 but i can't fight this fight because with other constituencies who don't want it. you end up tying yourself in knots. i think is a big possibility for political entrepreneurship over the next years. jack kemp when he took on the entire republican in 75, six, seven was a popular. you get it from the house. he was a backbencher. he was not on the house ways and means committee. they deeply resented him telling them what republican tax policy should be. so i think we have to have serious discussions of the merits of these issues, obviously.
specifically. by providing that information to the commanders that were ahead of the person in the unit, they were able to understand and maybe take a different factor towards helping the person. >> thank you. >> to have the senior flag officers testify of course and also waiting throughout the morning panel used to have a practice at the commission that the government witnesses would be on the first panel and they object to that inappropriate cases but the reason i'm pointing it out -- i will mention one other thing. the past few times we've invited someone from the department of justice the federal law mandates all federal agencies shall cooperate fully with the commission. they won't send to testify at any time in the past couple of years. so it kind of the allies at least one false myth and that is that the military doesn't take this issue very seriously. so after trying to compliment you, i did want to -- i think to the vice admiral to get up to speed on some of the issues some of the biggest improvements for the kind of career tracking that i think you'll have the lead on in the m
of this entire endeavor will be destroyed and egypt will suffer, israel will suffer, and the united states will suffer. i pose this amendment because it is uninformed and oblivious to the real-world challenges america faces and our continuing need to work effectively with partners in perfect and frustrating -- imperfect and frustrating though they may be, to defend our nation, our interests and our allies in an increasingly dangerous world. finally, madam president, the middle east is in a period of transition and change that we have not seen practically in its entire history. the egyptians are key and vital to what happens in that part of the world. it is the heart and soul and center of the arab world. one out of every four arabs that live in the arab world live in egypt. it is the cultural and historic center of all of the arab world. it is vital that we do whatever we can to see that egypt makes a transition to a free, democratic and open society. that is in grave danger today. to pass this amendment today and send this message to egypt in this very, very, very unstable and unsure time
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 62 (some duplicates have been removed)